|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 31 August, 1900.
THE BREWSTER SESSIONS
The annual meeting of the Magistrates for the purpose of renewing
licenses and of hearing applications for new licenses, was held on
Monday at noon at the Sessions House. The chair was taken by the Mayor
(Sir William Crundall), and there were also present Dr. Astley, J. L.
Bradley, H. Peake, M. Pepper, W. J. Smith, W. H. Thorpe, G. R. Killick,
E. Lukey, A. Bottle, W. J. Adcock, C. W. Bagshawe, and F. Prescott,
Esqrs., and Capt. Cay, R.N.
CAUTION TO CONVICTED HOUSES
The renewal of the old licenses was first considered, and the “Duke of
York” and the “Lord Nelson,” the holders of which were called forward.
The Mayor addressing Mrs. Ball, the landlady of the “Duke of York,” said
that he found that she had been convicted on 11th September, and fined
30s., for permitting drunkenness on the premises. He must caution her
that she must take more care in the future or the consequence would be
serious. Addressing Mr. A. Carpe, landlord of the “Lord Nelson,” he said
that he had been convicted on September 25th for serving a drunken
person, and he must be more careful in the future.
THE REV. G. SARSON AND THE “EXETER ARMS.”
Mr. T. Harby asked if anyone opposed the renewal of the old licenses.
The Rev. G. Sarson said he opposed the renewal of the “Exeter Arms.”
Mr. R. Mowll appeared for the tenant, G. E. Jarvis.
The Rev. G. Sarson then went into the box, and Mr. T. Harby wished to
swear him, but the Rev. gentleman asked if he were not at liberty first
to explain the facts.
Mr. Mowll said he had no objection.
The Rev. G. Sarson said he considered the house had been a great evil in
the street for many years, and he wished the Police to be called to say
whether they did not corroborate him. He had not done this without
notice, and he had written to the brewers. He had never objected to any
house in this way before.
Mr. Mowll: With the possibly exception of the “Harp” last year.
The Rev. G. Sarson remarked that that was a case of a back door next the
church.
Mr. R. Mowll said the notice was not correct; it ought to have been
serves seven clear days. He would, however, not take advantage of that
technical objection, but answer the case on its merits.
The notice of the objection was then read, the three grounds of
objection being – 1st, the existence of the license was to the detriment
of the interests of the public in the neighbourhood; 2nd, that the house
was not well conducted; 3rd, that the licence was not required by the
necessities of the neighbourhood.
The Rev. G. Sarson was then sworn. He said he could only repeat what the
notice said. He had constantly been annoyed by noises from this house,
and for years there had been a very unseemly state of things there. The
licence was not required, as there were five in the same street.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll. He was not a teetotaller, but had never
visited a house in his parish for refreshment. He wrote to the brewers
on May 11th, “I have had for many years repeated evidence that your
house, the “Exeter Arms,” is causing much wretchedness in this
neighbourhood. If you could see your way to closing it many families
would have great reason to thank you.” In reply he received a letter
from Messrs. G. Beer and Co., “We have never had any complaints ….. if
you will furnish us with some particulars, as it is our most earnest
desire that our houses should be conducted in such a manner that no
complaint should be made against them.” On June 7th he replied, “I don
not know what means of receiving complaints you may have, but I think if
you consult anyone you will get corroboration of what I say …. I cannot
give particulars without naming individuals …. I am unwilling to do so
for reason you will respect …. The noise I have long associated with the
house is very bad …. If it is possible to drop this house you might get
a license for a house in a quarter where less mischief would be done.”
He had given Messrs. Beer and Co. no particulars. There were many things
that could be complained of, but he had no dates. Some time ago there
was a great fight outside the house. It was said that the persons who
were taking part came out of the house, but he did not know…
Mr. Mowll: Do not trouble their Worships with things you cannot prove.
In answer to Mr. Mowll, witness said he was not in a position to
contradict the statement that there was not a single entry recorded
against the house.
Mr. Sarson said he wished the Police to be called to substantiate his
statement.
The Superintendent asked which one he wished to call.
Mr. Sarson said that anyone would do who had been on duty in the
district.
Police Constable Spinner was called. He had been on duty 21 times in the
last year in Limekiln Street. He had never seen a disturbance at the
house, not had his attention called to it.
Mr. Sarson remarkedthat this witness did not seem much good.
Sergeant Fogg said he had had some complaints made about the house, but
he had never seen anything to justify his reporting it on visiting it.
Mr. Sarson, addressing the Bench, said he did not think it was necessary
to have such evidence as might have been called. If they had reason to
believe the grounds of his request they had the right and power to grant
it.
The Mayor, without calling on Mr. Mowll, said, the Magistrates had made
up their minds to renew the license. There had been complaints as to the
sanitary arrangements of public houses in the Pier district, and they
hoped every effort would be made to remove the cause of complaints.
EARLY MORNING LICENSES – A NEW POLICY
The Mayor announced that of the early morning licenses the Magistrates
had made up their minds to renew the following that open at 3.30 – the
“Barley Mow,” “Pier Inn,” “Duchess of Kent,” “Garrick's Head,” “Rose and
Crown,” and the two railway refreshment buffets, and not the others
unless they could show cause. With regard to the five o'clock licenses,
the Magistrates would renew the “Griffin Inn,” the “Sir John Falstaff,”
the “Tower Inn,” and the “Park Inn,” but not the other unless sufficient
reason could be given.
Mr. Vidler said that 25 early morning licenses had not been renewed.
Mr. E. W. Knocker applied on behalf of Messrs. Leney and Co., the owners
of the “Bull Inn” and “Union Hotel” to renew early morning licenses to
those houses, on the grounds that the former was greatly needed,
especially as there was a large paper works close by, and a great many
persons passed by in the early morning, and the “Union Hotel” on account
of those connected with the shipping and boats. They would undertake
that coffee should be kept ready. Messrs. Leney had three other early
morning licenses, but they would not ask for their renewal.
Mr. H. Fielding (Canterbury), on behalf of Messrs. Gardner and Co. Ash,
applied for the renewal of the early morning license of the “Prince
Regent Inn,” Market Square. There was three days a week a great influx
of people to the market, and coffee had been supplied by the owners, and
would always be supplied. He also asked for the renewal of the privilege
to the “Terminus Hotel,” the landlord of which was a naturalised
Frenchman, and being well known across the water, had a considerable
number of foreigners frequently coming in the early morning, and the
house was also used by the men on the night duty at the S.E.R. Station.
The firm had four other licenses, but they were not asked for.
Mr. Clinch (Gravesend) applied on behalf of Mr. Wells, of the “Railway
Inn,” for the renewal of the privilege on the ground that the house
provided accommodation for fishermen with whom Mr. Wells had business
connections.
Mr. Wells was called, and gave evidence to the same effect.
The Mayor asked how it was that when the Police visited the house they
found it closed. They did not see the necessity of granting licenses
when they were not utilised. Before six o'clock no one required spirits,
wines, or beer, and therefore they had determined to only give licenses
to those people who sold tea and coffee, and in some cases where the
Inspector had visited he found the houses closed, or no tea or coffee.
The applicant remarked that very few people required tea or coffee now.
The house was only opened early when fishermen were about.
Mr. Clinch also applied for a five o'clock license for the “Brussels
Inn.”
The Mayor said that house had been closed on the three occasions on
which it had been visited.
A similar application for renewal was made for the “Shakespeare Inn” by
Mr. G. Scott.
The mayor said that in that case there had been permission for half-past
three, but the Police reported that the house had never been opened
before half-past five, and no tea or coffee supplied.
Mr. Scott said he had never had any of the Police ask for some.
Police Sergeant Fogg was called. He said he visited the house on three
occasions, and saw no tea or coffee supplied. He did not ask for it now,
nor go into the kitchen to see if it was ready to be served.
Mr. Fielding said he did not know that the applicant could be called. He
should like to put Mr. Doble in the box in reference to the application
for the renewal of the early morning license of the “Prince Regent.”
Mr. Doble was called. He stated that when the Constable asked for coffee
it was not ready then, but he had just put it on, and not knowing that
he was a constable, supposed he would not want to wait, and told him it
was not ready. He always opened his house early, and frequently served
more than 100 persons between five and six, and in the winter depended
upon it for a living.
The Magistrates retired to consider the question, and on returning the
Mayor stated that in regard to the “Bull Inn,” “Union Hotel,” “Prince
Regent,” “Terminus Hotel,” “Railway Inn,” the “Shakespeare Inn,” and the
“Brussels Inn,” the Magistrates had allowed them to open at five o'clock
provided that tea and coffee were ready for supply. The houses would be
watched, and the licenses would not be renewed unless this was done.
THE ADJOURNED SESSION
The Mayor announced that the adjourned Session would be held at
Broadstairs on September 19th, at 2.30. New applications would not be
heard at Broadstairs, but at another meeting to be held at Dover the
following day, the 20th ult., at 12 o'clock.
THE LICENSING COMMITTEE
The following Licensing Committee then sat to hear applications for new
licenses:- The Mayor, Dr. Astleym and Messrs. Bottle, Adcock, Bradley,
Peake, and Pepper.
THE PROMENADE PIER
Mr. E. W. Knocker applied on behalf of Mr. E. March, Secretary of the
Dover Promenade Pier and Pavilion Company, for a license of the Pavilion
to be erected on the Pier.
Mr. M. Bradley, on behalf of the Temperance Party, and Mr. Clinch on
behalf of Mr. Appleton and the trade generally, appeared to oppose.
Mr. Knocker said that the Pavilion to be erected was 124 feet by 50
feet, which would comprise a concert room, 100 feet by 50 feet and 32
feet. The Bench would be aware of the circumstances under which the Pier
was erected, and the erection of the Pavilion, had been felt to be
absolutely necessary. The cost, £6,000, had been provided, and the work
would have been commenced last year, but for the exceptional prices of
materials. The Company had a substantial capital of £25,000, and 383
share-holders, of which 301 were Dover people, and 200 held five or less
shares. Therefore, in fact, the application was from those fellow
townsmen to the Licensing Committee to grant them the privilege of
providing refreshments in this building. He thought that he would be
able to show that it was needed. There had been complaints by visitors,
and especially those arriving by boats, of not being able to obtain
refreshments. The Pier was also frequented by a large number of persons,
many of whom came from beyond this locality for the fishing. In bad
weather there was no shelter on the Sea Front and last Bank Holiday a
large number of people applied for shelter at the Pier gates, which
could not be provided. He would point out what an advantage it would be
to Dover to have at the end of the Pier a building of this sort, with
the additional advantage of being able to obtain any refreshment that
might be needed. There was, so far as we know, no Pier on the coast
which had a Pavilion and was without a license, and for there to be an
exception so far as Dover was concerned would be unfortunate. He was
rather surprised that the Licensed Victuallers opposed the application,
as it would do them no harm, there being no house near.
Mr. A. E. Marsh, Secretary of the Dover Promenade Pier and Pavilion
Company, produced the plans of the Pavilion, showing the refreshment bar
at the land end of the Pavilion, occupying the additional 25 feet beyond
the concert hall. He also gave evidence bearing out Mr. Knocker's
opening statement.
By Mr. Clinch: Do you say that no other Pier does not hold a license? I
should like to know the name of one.
I would suggest Southend, where a license has been repeatedly refused. –
Oh, that is on the river; I meant on the South Coast.
Witness stated that the refreshment bar would be 20 feet by 8 feet.
Liquors would be sold in the ordinary way. A license had been granted to
the Granville Restaurant on the Sea Front; that was something under a
quarter of a mile from the entrance to the Pier. In regard of the
“Burlington Hotel,” he did not think seaside trippers would be likely to
frequent the lounge there.
By Mr. Bradley: Can you tell me when the decision was arrived at to
apply for the license?
Witness: When the application was signed about 23 days ago. A previous
application had been made seven years ago.
Mr. Bradley: Was anything said when the prospectus was issued for the
purpose of obtaining money to build the Pavilion of any intention to
apply for a license?
Witness: No.
Mr. Bradley: has the opinion of the share-holders been taken?
Witness: No, the Board of Directors do not confer with the Share-holders
as to the mode in which they will work the Pier.
Mr. Bradley: Was the decision of the Board of Directors to apply for
this license unanimous?
Witness: Probably you will have an opportunity of asking the Managing
Director. I do not divulge what takes place at the Board Meetings.
Mr. Bradley: Unfortunately in a matter of this sort I am entitled to
have an answer?
Witness: The resolution was carried, otherwise the application would not
have been made.
Mr. Bradley: I ask whether it was carried unanimously?
The witness declined to answer the question, and Mr. Bradley strongly
insisted on his rite to put this question.
Mr. Knocker: You must answer it.
Witness: yes, the resolution was carried unanimously. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Bradley: Information differs.
Witness in reply to further questions said that most of the boats
supplied refreshments on board. Refreshments in the way of eatables
would probably be supplied in the bar.
H. W. Thorpe said he acted as managing director, and the application was
made by order of the Directors. He considered the license would be of
immense advantage to the Pavilion which it was proposed to erect, and
meet a need considerably felt even since the Pier had been erected.
By Mr. Clinch. The Pavilion would be erected whether the license was
granted or not.
Mr. Clinch in addressing the Bench, asked if ever such a weak case was
put for what was an application for a public house license. It was
purely and simply an application to benefit the Company, and the only
evidence they had was that of the managing Director and the Secretary.
Last year he had opposed the granting of a license to the Granville
Restaurant. That had been granted and now the Promenade Pier Company
said, “Why can't we have one?” he submitted that no necessity for such a
license had been made out.
Mr. M. Bradley, in opposing the application, said that those who
instructed him were not animated by a feeling of hostility to the Pier,
as some of them were large shareholders, but there was a difference of
opinion as to this. He thought it would have had a great deal more force
if a meeting of shareholders had been called and given an opportunity of
expressing their view whether a license should be applied for or not. If
the application were granted there would be simple one more drinking bar
on the Sea Front, and adding to an already highly competitive trade. It
would also tend to lower the tone of those who frequent the Pier. They
had had complaints that the behaviour on the Sea Front this year had
been worse than it had ever been before, and if this license were
granted people might not have the opportunity they have now of getting
away from the rowdiness of going on the Pier.
Mr. Knocker remarked that the Pier had held a license every Regatta Day,
and there had been no complaints.
Mr. Clinch said that this was because a licensed victualler had held it.
A person of respectability and experience. (Laughter.)
The decision of the Magistrates was deferred.
A NEW LICENSE FOR TOWER HAMLETS
Mr. Mowll applied on behalf of William C. N. Chapman, for Messrs. Beer
and Co., for a license for a house at the corner of Wyndham Road and
Gsochen Road, Tower Hamlets.
Mr. Clinch and Mr. Bradley opposed the license.
Mr. R. Mowll, in making the application, pointed out how much Tower
Hamlets had increased in the course of the last few years. The site of
the proposed house was at the end of Wyndham Road, being actually in
Goschen Road. The whole of the house on the west side of South Road had
no licensed house of any kind, and the nearest house was the “Dewdrop”
in Tower Hamlets Street, which was a distance of 300 yards. He urged it
was only reasonable for a large increasing neighbourhood that some
further opportunity for obtaining refreshments should be granted to the
inhabitants. Messrs. Beer and Co. offered, if the license be granted, to
surrender another fully licensed house in Dover.
Mr. Jennings, architect, handed in the plans of the proposed house,
which would cost £2,000.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clinch: The rating of the house which was proposed
ton be surrendered was £20. the applicants had three houses within 500
yards of the proposed house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: There were no houses on the west side of
the proposed house, and on the east side they did not reach it, one plot
being vacant. The house would be useful to Wyndham Road, Douglass Road,
and Lowther Road, but nearly half the houses were nearer to the existing
houses than this one.
Mr. Peake asked what house it was proposed to give up?
Mr. R. Mowll said his client proposed to give up the “Marquis of
Waterford,” which Mr. Bradley was so anxious last year for his clients
to give up.
Mr. Bradley said that Mr. Mowll was not anxious to give it up last year.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Mowll: Not without something in exchange.
Mr. Clinch submitted that the house proposed to be given up was not
sufficient, and the Magistrates would have to be satisfied that there
was some requirement in the neighbourhood to which it was proposed to
take the license. There were five licensed houses in the immediate
neighbourhood, and there were no houses in front of this house, none to
the west, and only a few cottages on the east. He asked the Bench to say
there was no necessity shown, and not to accede to the application.
Mr. Bradley also addressed the Bench in opposition to the license. He
pointed out that 130 had signed a memorial against the license, against
60 who had signed in favour of it.
The Rev. E. G. Mowbrey, Vicar of St. Bartholomew's, said the house was
not required. There were already nine houses in Tower Hamlets, and it
was undesirable that a new license should be granted to the
neighbourhood.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He was a member of the Dover Temperance
Council. He should not object to every new license.
The decision was deferred.
A NEW LICENSE FOR ELMS ROAD.
This was an application by Mr. R. Mowll on behalf of Mr. Matthews, of
Messrs. Thompson and Son, brewers, Walmer, for a full license for a new
house on the south side of Elms Road, just beyond where the footpath
from “Stepping Down” joins the road.
Mr. E. W. Knocker appeared to oppose on behalf of Messrs. Leney and Co.,
who were applying for a license in the same district, and Mr. Clinch and
Mr. R. Bradley also opposed.
Mr. R. Mowll said that the application was made in respect to an
entirely new neighbourhood, and he believed Mr. Knocker would agree with
him in suggesting that the locality required a new license, as the
nearest house was the “Westbury Hotel,” 2,086 feet from the plot. He
thought they would say that this neighbourhood, was sufficiently large
to allow of two licenses, and if Mr. Knocker was willing to do as he had
done, and offer to give up another license, he thought it only right
that both applications should be granted.
Mr. E. W. Fry produced the plan of the new building.
In reply to Mr. Knocker, witness said he knew the property on both sides
belonged to the Monins Estate, and he had heard that they had reserved a
plot for a licensed building. The premises would cost between £1,600 and
£1,700.
Mr. Clinch asked how many houses were in front of this £1,700 house.
Witness: Only one, of course; you cannot have more than one house in
front of another.
Mr. Peake asked the name of this house to be surrendered in this case,
and suggested that the “Grapes” should be the one.
Mr. Mowll regretted that he was not in a position to offer the “Grapes”
at the moment; his instructions were to offer a fully licensed house,
the “Duke of York.”
Mr. Clinch: What is the rent?
Mr. Bradley: What is the length of the lease? That would be more
interesting. (Laughter.)
Mr. Mowll said it had 31 years to run.
Mr, Knocker said he opposed on behalf of Messrs. Leney, who were
applying for an off-license for a house in Eaton Road. His clients had
bought a plot of ground on the estate with stipulations, it being the
intention of the trustees to reserve this particular plot for a licensed
house, for the reason that they thought a licensed house should not be
in the main road, and his application would be for an off-license. The
Monins Trustees had a large extent of ground there, extending almost
half a mile along Monins Road, and they proposed to build frontages one
and three quarter miles, and therefore he thought that under those
circumstances they should have something to say as to where the public
houses should be put.
Mr. Clinch said this was another case of moving a license where it was
no use to a place where it might be of some use. If this house was moved
from Snargate Street just as much beer would be drunk there.
Mr. Bradley said that he never remembered two more extraordinary
applications than Mr. Mowll's. the plots were practically in the
dessert, and this particular one was a hole by the wayside – (laughter)
– and very close to what was recently a laystall of the Corporation. It
was a most eligible site, but he would suggest it should continue in its
present use.
The decision was reserved.
MESSRS. DICKESON AND CO'S APPLICATION.
Mr. Mowll applied on behalf of Messrs. Dickeson and Co. for a wine,
spirit and beer license. It was to enable Messrs. Dickeson and Co. to
supply wines and spirits and beers to the officers' messes in the same
way as they did in respect of ordinary food. Messrs. Dickeson conducted
a very high class business, and were famous almost throughout the world.
They asked for this license, which they already had at Aldershot and
other places. AT the present moment they had the honour of supplying Mr.
and Mrs. Cronje at St Helena. (Laughter.)
Mr. A. W. Prince said the firm had already had the privilege at
Aldershot and Salisbury and other places.
In reply to Mr. Clinch, Mr. Prince stated that they had sent a letter to
the papers, and said that the omission of reference to beer was an error
on his part, as he did not know it was necessary.
Mr. Clinch urged that the Bench should refuse a portion of the
application. He contended that it was to enable them to supply bottled
beer in the canteen, where a license could be held by a person who was
not responsible like a licensed victualler.
Mr. R. Mowll said that canteen licenses had nothing to do with this
case. They were granted by the Secretary of State for War, and were not
things simply got for by asking.
OFF-LICENSE AND THE MONINS ESTATE
Mr. Knocker applied on behalf of Mr. W. Cheeseman for an off-license for
a site on the Monins Estate.
The application was opposed by Mr. Clinch, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Mowll.
Mr. Clinch put forward a preliminary objection that the bench should not
grant a license to something that did not exist. The notice given was
that he intended to apply for an off-license for premises “now in the
course of erection.” Under Section 22 of the Licensing Act of 1874, the
Justices had power to make what was called a provisional grant, but that
only applied to a full license.
Mr. Knocker said the notice correctly stated the state of things at the
date of the notice, August 4th, but the premises were since completed,
and the applicant had entered into possession on August 11th. This was
for premises erected on the site purchased from the Monins Trustees by
Messrs. Leney, and set apart by the trustees for licensed premises. The
applicant in the previous case, not being able to get this site, had
purchased another close by and made an application for a license. A site
had been given for a church, and it was a great advantage that licensed
premises should be far away from the church. The site was at the top of
Eaton Road, it being thought best to have it far away from the main
road. In a circular connected with a church there he noticed the
population beyond Belgrave Road was put at 2,000. The bench would hardly
expect Messrs. Leney to give up a full license for an off-license, but
if ever a full license was applied for a full license would be given up.
He could not say that the Vicar altogether approved of this, but he did
not oppose it, and he did object to the other one ….
Mr. Mowll: Now, now, Mr. Knocker, that won't do (Laughter.) My
application has already been made, and Mr. Fallon has not appeared
against it.
Mr. Knocker: I carefully weighed my words, because I had a letter from
the Vicar, and I understand he has written to the Bench objecting to
your house.
Mr. F. Hayward produced the plans, and stated that his firm were agents
for the Monins Trustees. They proposed to lay out a mile and
three-quarters frontages.
Mr. F. Sankey, who is erecting houses on the estate, thought the license
extremely necessary.
William Cheeseman, the tenant, said he entered into possession on the
11th inst., and was to pay £35 a year.
By Mr. Clinch: How many nights have you slept there?
Witness: Every night.
Mr Clinch: Have you a wife and family?
Witness: Yes, but they are not here; they are at the “Kent Tap,”
Sandgate.
Mr. A. C. Leney, assistant managing director to Leney and Co., said the
firm bought the plot from the Monins Trustees. It was arranged when Mr.
Monins was approached some three years ago for a cricket ground. He did
not think a full license was required at present.
Mr. Bradley: if you get this license I suppose we shall see you here
again for a full license?
Witness: I hope so. (Laughter.)
Mr. Clinch contended that the place was not completed.
Mr. Bradley called attention to the very wise line the Bench had adopted
not to grant applications unless an offer was made of another license in
some part of the town. He handed in a memorial against the license
signed by 3o residents in Eaton Road.
Mr. Mowll urged that the Bench should not grant a new license without an
old one being surrendered.
DECISIONS
After a retirement of ten minutes the Mayor stated:- The application of
W. C. N. Chapman and A. J. Matthews are not granted. The application of
E. A. Marsh for a license for the Promenade Pier is granted on condition
that amended plans are submitted with regard to the refreshment
department of the pavilion for the consideration of the Magistrates at
the adjourned meeting on September 20th. The application of Messrs.
Dickeson and Co. is granted; that of Mr. Cheeseman is refused.
|
